The discussion about basic income may be further than you are aware.
The idea of a basic income for every human is discussed since centuries. Switzerlands vote made it more popular than it's ever been.
Most people immideately argue that it certainly can't be financed. That's wrong, there are several studies in different countries how different forms of basic income could be implemented. Until today I prefered the model of Götz Werner, which would give every person about 900$ and abolish all taxes except a substantially raised VAT. But this concept has one big flaw: the economy would have to compete with its neighbors, and as they have a lower VAT a country implementing that on its own will shoot itself in the foot.
Today, I found a better concept
The site explaining the details is in german, they seem to be working on an english one though.
I didn't manage to read everything yet, but I think I got enough of an overview to share the basic principle with you:
All taxes would be abolished. A new sales tax would be introduced, similar to VAT but without pre-tax allowance. This tax would be very low (~15% depending on the goods, 0% for basic needs like food), if, and here's the catch, only if the company has enough employees compared to their sales volume. Companies with less employees would have to pay a higher tax.
Let's say the economy has a total turnover of 10M a month, and there's 100 people in that country. For each 1M, a company would need to employ 10 people. Of course it will be necessary to adapt this rate for different branches, but the point remains. Those employing less than required pay a higher tax of up to 200%. This would effectively make their products too expensive compared to their competitors'. And this is where the easy solution comes in: the companies can employ "absent workers" to avoid the tax. By adapting the rates to changes in total turnover and population, it can be ensured that every citizen gets an income by a company.
Their calculations lead to an exciting result: 2000$ monthly could be financed with this model, based on the economy of 2013 (in Germany)!
The idea is not perfect as it still depends on laws enforced by a more or less central authority. But it's definitely the most sophisticated one I've seen in that realm so far, and I'm interested in the topic since at least 10 years.
Please, all you people advocating some system of basic income, BEGIN by dealing with the assertion that ALL TAXATION IS THEFT (otherwise, it would not be tax, it would be a voluntary donation), and violates the non-aggression principal. Don't leave it to last, after you have come up with your otherwise perfect plan - because I, for one, will refuse to pay your tax.
Excellent point. It is just disguised socialism unless the government pays for it themselves.
One modification can make it ethical, import taxes and luxury sales tax. At least then you have the choice of saving your money, or paying the tax on your import or luxury purchase. Before 1913 this was how the government was funded. If you bought local goods and food was not taxed, this would be the ideal system.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-04-15/100-years-old-still-killing-us-america-was-much-better-income-tax
The proposal (on the german site) includes variable sales taxes for different goods, the 15% seem to be just an average. Basic needs like food are extempt as long as the employee/turnover ratio is met.
I included this in the OP
You know what's worse than legislated theft? When wealth inequality is so severe that it leads to revolt and the violent removal of those seen as having benefited the most from an unfair system.
I for my part am quite happy to live in a country where walled communities aren't necessary. Others seem to prefer to get a lot of guns and shoot everyone who approaches their territory...
Are those the only two alternatives?
Wealth inequality is the purpose of the state. As such taxes are the purpose of wealth inequality as well. Poor people are just too stupid to understand
Most of today's big guys got their wealth by theft. The non-aggression principle can only come to effect when the current situation, which evolved through centuries of constant aggression, is solved. Everything else would mean subordination to our current masters.
You have a current master? Who dat? (I'm not married, so I guess I may not be able to empathize with you :-) )
I'm divorced :P
I was really thinking to add a "wannabe" before masters, but expected it to be understandable without :D
So bribing congress to create rules that personally benefit you is not a form of theft?
If government (I'm talking America here) were to be kept within the bounds of their Constitutional powers, no one could bribe them to make rules to personally benefit them BECAUSE THOSE RULES WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL and hence null and void.
You misunderstand the purpose of the government....
I might,in a very abstract and idealistic way,agree that taxation is theft.But more relevant is that property is theft.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau made the same general point when he wrote: "The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying 'This is mine,' and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody."[6]
so,could we have a world without property,and without taxes?
In my opinion,yes,and it is called among other things a resource based economy.It is a post scarcity system.WE have the tools to leave this petty games and conflicts behind,fighting over scarce resources,people living in overabundance while others starve.Btw the state has been an instrument for political stability always,and has protected the interests of the owners of(excessive) capital.
This is kicking the proverbial can down the road, but doesn't solve the issue. If one country implements this and surrounding countries don't, what's stopping then from saying "shove your taxes" and moving? It's a tax either way, whether they pay the tax or hire useless workers.
Furthermore, I think hiring workers that won't work is the wrong way to go. We're already on the path as many jobs that exist today can, should, and will be automated because they just aren't very difficult or inherently valuable. Once hired, these absent workers would still be required to work in some capacity, because no company is going to pay people to not do anything and not even warm a seat.
Nothing really. I'd say: let them go. When they don't serve the society, why would we need them here?
Abolishing all taxes would give most companies a big advantage on the global markets, the country they're in would be kind of a tax haven.
I didn't see anything about taxes on imports yet, but that would be the traditional solution.
Not now. That'd change when they wouldn't hire them for productive reasons but only to avoid their endprices being too high for the market.
Thanks for the post. As a person living in a country with pretty high tax rates i'am always curious about possible models for a basic income. I do have a lot of friends that are pro basic income but never paid even a penny in income tax due to being long term students etc.
It would be exciting to see it applied and pulled of in a broad model test. And even if it fails one could probably learn a ton from it.
I really don't like concepts where firms are forced to choose a certain kind of operating model. It's usually best if firms are free to adapt to supply and demand as easily as possible. More friction there is in adaptation, less effective the firm is.
This model looks also pretty bad for citizens, too. They would have to look for shitty jobs that nobody wants them to do in order to get some money for living. It would be a welfare lottery rather than actually helpful welfare benefit.
Why should it hinder them in adapting to supply/demand? I don't see it adding any friction there.
We have that already. 2 or 3 shitjobs even.
The "absent workers" would be exactly what the name suggests: absent. Not working for the company, just being on their payroll. In simple terms, companies would pay for welfare directly, without the need for the state as middle man.
Firms should be able to focus on serving their customers and forget everything else. In this model the state is forcing them to do stuff that's not their specialty. They need to spend time, money and resources to deal with problems that have nothing to do with goods or services that they are offering to markets.
The state has to be the middle man. It's much more efficient than forcing firms to be middle men. This is about specialization: there should be only one institution that handles the whole social security system. It will offer same services equally for everybody so nobody is discriminated. If firms have to handle social security, the quality will be highly variable. Firms might have cash problems and social security payments are delayed (and poor people can't do anything about it) or firms can go bankrupt (and poor people have to find another ones to give them money).
It's much more fairer for everybody if firms are not forced to take care of things that they don't want to do and those who really need social security don't have to expose themselves to unnecessary risks.
Right now companies have a lot more work to care about taxes and benefits for all their employees. I'd expect less overhead for them.
I see the issues for poor people you mentioned, but I don't think that couldn't be solved easily either. The state could still jump in when problems appear. When the rates are set accordingly, it can be made easy for anyone looking for a position to get it (in return more companies would struggle to meet the conditions, so this has to be weighted very carefully).
Swiss voters have overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to introduce a guaranteed basic income for all.
Final results from Sunday's referendum showed that nearly 77% opposed the plan, with only 23% backing it.
The government and all political parties asked people to vote no. With the false argument that it couldn't be financed.
Also funny how it's "only" 23% everywhere. That's 1/4 of the population, basic income has never been as popular as it is today.
How many people make less than 3x basic income. I bet it's more than 23%